A question for Christian leftists. [Archive]

Princess Luna

29th April 2011, 00:27

Quite easily- it doesn't.
Sexism:
Genesis
3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Deuteronomy
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
__________________________________________________ ___________

22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Homophobia
Leviticus:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

Romans I
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(its a long list of people who are going to hell)

Corinthians 6
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

Ethnic cleansing
Deuteronomy
2:32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.
2:33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
2:35 Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took.
___________________________________________-
7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them : neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee

Joshua
(1:3-5) "Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you ... There shall not any man be able to stand before thee."
__________
3:10 And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.

ComradeMan

29th April 2011, 09:28

bcbm

29th April 2011, 09:42

Revolution starts with U

29th April 2011, 09:48

^^^^^ It also says "let he who is without guilt cast the first stone"- and no one threw a stone, it also says "judge not lest thou be judged".

Where does the Bible say that now, in 2011, you must go around stoning people?

I thought you just said "it doesn't" (suggest ethnic cleansing, and women as subservient to men).... way to shift the goal posts.

Tablo

29th April 2011, 09:48

Any Christian that is also a decent human being just cherry picks the bible at most.

bcbm

29th April 2011, 10:06

the bible was created by the catholic church in the uh 3rd century or w/e doesnt negate the whole cristian project

Robocommie

29th April 2011, 10:17

Also not everyone who reads the Bible is a fucking literalist. Lots of Christians are taught that its the inspired word of God, written by MAN.

Os Cangaceiros

29th April 2011, 10:29

How do you reconsile your leftist political views with the fact the Bible says gays should be stoned to death, women are property, slavery is acceptable and ethnic cleansing is not only alright, but god commands it.

Most of the fire and brimstone stuff is in the Old Testament, which mainstream Christianity today regards as an interesting prelude to what really matters and basically what defines Christianity: the New Testament. I think the narrative goes something like this...

God keeps saying "I'M THE LORD THY GOD!", but humanity keeps ignoring his edicts and pissing him off, resulting in God killing a lot of people to try and show them that he is indeed the lord their god. So he tries a different tactic and becomes a warmer, fuzzier god, sending down his only begotten son Jesus to preach to humanity that he is the lord their god. That's how I've always understood it, anyway. Been a long time since I've been to sunday school.

In any case, most of the stuff in the Old Testament was when God was in "angry god" mode, and a lot of it is considered to be irrelevant laws passed down by the ancient Hebrew tribes of Israel and Judea. Of course there are some nutbars out there who still take it all very seriously, the Westboro Baptist Church probably being the most famous example.

hatzel

29th April 2011, 10:46

black magick hustla

29th April 2011, 11:49

ComradeMan

29th April 2011, 11:54

ok the early zealots and judeochristians were badass but jesus wasnt a libertarian lol

A carpenter's son with questions around his birth, a lowly Galilean- not a Judaean, he stood up against the clerics, the corruption of the temple, the might of Imperial Rome etc- who was down with the outcasts of society and the "workers" and who preached equality and non-classism etc... and he got nailed to a cross for it....:(

I am always surprised why leftists have problems with Jesus- even though they may not accept the divine aspects.

black magick hustla

29th April 2011, 19:50

A carpenter's son with questions around his birth, a lowly Galilean- not a Judaean, he stood up against the clerics, the corruption of the temple, the might of Imperial Rome etc- who was down with the outcasts of society and the "workers" and who preached equality and non-classism etc... and he got nailed to a cross for it....:(

i dont think that jesus even existed a lot. to be honest, i think the character "jesus" was a collection of different stories in zealot and judeochristian communities. the martyr aspect makes sense because so many zealots hellbent in deastroying the roman state were martyred.

I am always surprised why leftists have problems with Jesus- even though they may not accept the divine aspects.

because he didnt exist. also maybe 600 years ago christianity was the language of slaves and peasants to image a world without money but not christianity is completely recuperated and i've never met a single "christian" communist with solid politics at all.

JerryBiscoTrey

29th April 2011, 20:02

i just want to know what Christians think of this verse:

Luke 19:27

27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

Jesus was, and will always be, a libertarian

Besides the above scripture that i just quoted i think Jesus probably would have been an Anarcho-Pacifist or something along those lines

Chris

29th April 2011, 20:19

Generally, I think the bible was ultimately written by humans. I follow kind of the general gist of it (god is a bastard who doesn't particularily care, jesus is less of a bastard, the holy spirit is somewhat of a third wheel). Pascal's Wager keeps me among the flock, but I generally think God doesn't give a shit and/or have forgotten.
I'm a materialist, but I think there was some kind of conscious or semi-conscious force behind the creation itself. I think the consciousness itself plays little part in what happened afterwards, and that Jesus might have picked up on said consciousness or something like that.

Generally, it is Pascal's Wager. It doesn't cost me anything to believe, I was raised with belief, and there is nothing to gain/lose either way. So, why not? F*** organised religion though. Religion is humanity's occasional lapse into insanity to keep going, and shouldn't influence our lives and politics to any degree.

Lenina Rosenweg

29th April 2011, 20:37

El Chuncho

29th April 2011, 21:06

Lenina is entirely right. If Jesus did exist he would have been very different to the figure picture in the Bible. His birth story is, for a start, filled with many anachronisms and mistakes.

Take the census of the entire Roman world mentioned in the Bible story; there wasn't one. There were three censuses of Roman citizens, and they were not worldwide censuses that includes the people of Iudea (which didn't include Galilee anyway), only citizens of Rome:

"When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were ****ed 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations."

Also Joseph returned to his ancestral town, according to the Bible, not even his home town, and he was from Galilee, which was not a Roman province. You would not have to travel for miles and miles to a place a traceable ancestor was from to sign a census, especially when you were not a Roman citizen and only from a quasi-puppet state not officially owned by the Roman Empire. Galilee of AD 6 was under the rule of Herod Antipas, and would not have been bound by any Roman census or taxing.

Because he is portrayed as a major threat to the authorities in Iudea, including the Sanhedrin. There would be a mention of him, regardless of his social status. The Sanhedrin would have correspondence about him and the Bible tells us that they received letters from spies and informers. Most important to all, there would be legal documents as he was executed by the authorities.

The real Jesus, if he existed, was obviously not as important to the Sanhedrin and the Roman Empire as he is in the Bible, as no sources from the time in which he lived, or directly after, mention him. Christian scholars like toe take pieces from Josephus's 'Antiquities' (especially the 'Testimonium Flavianum') as sources, but they do not really mention Jesus of Nazareth at all. Jesus, son of Damneus and the Jesus mentioned earlier in the Antiquities, are obviously the same person, it flows better this way. You see, the thing is that the addition of Christ is believed, or known really, by most scholars to be a forgery and thus it gives no real identification of who this Jesus was. But in the fashion of the time, it identifies him.

People didn't write the same way. Some think that Jordanes, a Gothic author, mistakeningly separates Swedes into two groups based on two different versions of their name, and the repeat mention of them (under the other name) not long after the first. He doesn't, but writing was different then.

Jesus, brother of James, is obviously the same Jesus who becomes high priest and most scholars would agree with this. In fact most Christians scholars and secular scholars have considered the testimony to be a forgery since the 19th Century. Due to the rise of fundamentalism, though, many Christians have resurrected the debate and scholars keep disproving it time and time again. Use better sources, Josephus, an orthodox JEW, is not one of them.

No Christian scholars pre-Eusebius reference the source as evidence, because the reference did not exist at the time - Eusebius, a propagandist, may have been the forger.

Robocommie

29th April 2011, 21:23

i just want to know what Christians think of this verse:

Luke 19:27

27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

That's from a parable that Jesus is telling, about a king who is facing civil war, and finds that some of his subjects are disloyal. It's a metaphor, with God being the king, reigning over a kingdom which is at civil war between good and evil, wickedness and righteousness. On Judgement Day then, there will be a reckoning for those who chose wickedness. It's not meant to be taken literally and it's not Jesus trying to tell people to kill his enemies. That'd be odd given that he explicitly rejected political power throughout the Gospels.

Revolution starts with U

29th April 2011, 21:32

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19&version=NIV

I don't know. If you read the next passage, it seems Jesus is marching into the city with all the pomp and circumstance of a king.

ComradeMan

29th April 2011, 22:24

i dont think that jesus even existed a lot. to be honest, i think the character "jesus" was a collection of different stories in zealot and judeochristian communities. the martyr aspect makes sense because so many zealots hellbent in deastroying the roman state were martyred.

because he didnt exist. also maybe 600 years ago christianity was the language of slaves and peasants to image a world without money but not christianity is completely recuperated and i've never met a single "christian" communist with solid politics at all.

So you've moved from his not existing "a lot"- despite some evidence to the contrary- to not existing at all. :rolleyes:

I've met a lot "communists" in general without solid politics. Not to mention the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot...:lol:

Robocommie

29th April 2011, 23:29

I don't know. If you read the next passage, it seems Jesus is marching into the city with all the pomp and circumstance of a king.

Well I mean c'mon dude, the Gospels were written by people who believed Jesus was the earthly manifestation of God, I'm not sure what else you'd expect.

Tenka

30th April 2011, 00:00

jesus was trying to destroy the ancient rules and put the power of religion away from the temple and into the handles of the people but it quickly got turned into another "temple" by rome who saw the power in it

I have not read the bible in full; throughout my life I have only read various silly excerpts from it, so forgive me if this is a totally stupid question to ask you or anyone else who might care to answer: what is meant by the following, and who is saying it?

Matthew 5:17-20 (New International Version, ©2011)

The Fulfillment of the Law

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

ComradeMan

30th April 2011, 00:41

Robocommie

30th April 2011, 00:48

The Greek word in the New Testament that is translated to "fulfill" is "pleroo" which has the connotation of "to fill to the brim" or "leveling up" like you'd level up a ditch to be equal with the ground. It's another way of saying satisfy, complete, or end. In short, Jesus was saying he had not come to abolish the old laws but to complete them, to say that he was not trying to abolish God's law but challenge people's understanding of it.

When Jesus said, 'You have heard that it was said by those of old, 'You shall not murder....' (Verse 21), Who had said that? Why, of course He is quoting the sixth commandment (Exodus 20:13)! Then He makes it plain that hatred and anger are the real evils here (Verse 22). In this way the point is made that while the commandment is good, it did not go far enough. The disciples of Jesus were to be obedient in the spirit – not purely the letter!In other words, he's trying to say that its not enough to simply follow the laws because they're the Law. You have to understand that there is a moral, philosophical underpinning behind the law. Murder isn't wrong because it's a commandment, it's wrong because it's tied up with hate and anger, and it disfigures the soul.

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement." Matthew 5:21

He's establishing the law, and then...

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgement. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, Raca(1), is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, "You fool!" will be in danger of the fires of hell." - Matthew 5:22

He fulfills it. It's not just murder. It's the hate and anger and contempt for your fellow man that's the real problem. In the long run what he's trying to say is, "Don't think you can skirt this shit by following the letter of the law. This isn't about law codes, this is about right and wrong, and what wrong you do will still catch up with you, there's no getting off on technicalities."

But bcbm isn't wholly wrong because Jesus was specifically talking about an internal relationship with right and wrong, which is not something you could consult a legal expert, like a Pharisee, about. Jesus criticized the Pharisees largely because of their moral legalism.

L.A.P.

30th April 2011, 00:59

Yeah, pretty much Jesus and the Christian church and all that specifically said that the Old Testament law was no longer the law. That's why there are Christians who are uncircumcised, who eat pork, who eat blood, who eat meat and dairy together, who shave their beards, who castrate animals, who employ people in the army within a year of their marriage, who...do I have to go on? I think it's pretty easy for a Christian leftist to reconcile their leftism with the Old Testament, as long as they can reconcile their Christianity with their love of a good ham and cheese sandwich. The only citations 29.000 has given are clearly from the Old Testament...

I was just about to mention the fact that the posters seem to express overt disses towards the Old Testament in favor of the New Testament thus showing an indirect support of the proposition that the laws of Christianity are less authoritarian and overall superior to the laws of Judaism therefore kind of dismissing the far left currents of Judaism. I don't feel comfortable with this. :unsure:

hatzel

30th April 2011, 01:48

Oh, I'm perfectly comfortable with it. Makes life that little bit more fun :)

Dumb

30th April 2011, 02:24

There's actually a great deal of material within the New Testament that makes it difficult to reconcile Christianity with leftism; it's not just a matter of verses in Leviticus, etc.

Matthew 7:14:

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Matthew 10:

10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand...
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

More Matthew, this time with a dollop of racism on the part of Jesus:

15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

From Mark:

16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Opposes the workers' struggle (Gospel of Luke):

3:12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
3:13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

Etc. & so forth. Now on to Paul...

Homophobia in Romans:

1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse:
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened...
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans again, this time in the "religious tolerance" section:

16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

More homophobia, this time in 1 Corinthians:

6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

And so on.

So if we want to throw out the Hebrew Scripture on the grounds that Jesus supposedly "fulfilled the law," how do Christian leftists reconcile their leftism with these portions of the Bible?

Astarte

30th April 2011, 04:26

There is no independent evidence outside of the bible that Jesus ever existed. The historian Josephesus, who wrote extensively of what was going in in Judea during the time Jesus supposedly lived, never mentioned him. Jesus does seem to be a composite of several Essene and Zealot leaders or preachers who lived around that time, with some stories from Buddhism thrown in.

In a way though whether or not Jesus ever loterally existed might not really matter if the bible stories are taken "mythopoeticaly" as a story of a revolutionary who sought to redeem humanity from oppression.

I have thought about this quite a bit, and am aware of the very few historical references to Jesus, but just looking at it from a macro-historical view ... to me it just seems there must have been some kind of actual person, a lightning rod if you will - if there wasn't that means that Paul and all the apostles were also fabrications - or hoaxsters that created the story (without a central lightning-rod Messiah figure?) and then worked to spread the Gospel and had such success that by 325 AD Rome thought it a wise choice to co-opt the religion... Just seems Christianity could not be, or would not be the way it is today without there having been that teacher/prophet/messiah figure.

Revolution starts with U

30th April 2011, 04:43

Are you saying Amen-Ra existed too?

Robocommie

30th April 2011, 08:19

So if we want to throw out the Hebrew Scripture on the grounds that Jesus supposedly "fulfilled the law," how do Christian leftists reconcile their leftism with these portions of the Bible?

Simple. Don't read it like a god-damn fundamentalist. That's also why you don't "throw out" the Hebrew scripture either. You just don't read it like a Young Earth Creationist. I said it already, a lot of Christians aren't literalists, and actually a lot of Christians believe literalism is absurd. I'm not Christian anymore, but when I was, I did. It is in fact the official position of the Catholic Church that the Bible is a book not to be read out of the context in which it was written: some decades after the time that Jesus was believed to have died, by apostles who were very much men of their time, with prejudices and biases of their own.

I mean honestly, what are you thinking, talking about homophobia and racism in books that were written almost 2000 years ago, before any of these modern conceptions of sexual or ethnic identity existed? How absurd is it to be talking about the "workers struggle" before even the development of the Marxist definition of fucking feudalism, let alone capitalism? Why are you so uncharitable as to not give leftist Christians the benefit of the doubt that they may be smart enough to understand a thing called context?

Don't be so desperate to invalidate the viewpoints of people whose beliefs you don't like that you overlook common sense, let alone common courtesy. There are people who work their whole lives studying ancient languages and cultures to be able to parse the meanings of these texts, and whole denominations have been founded on alternate interpretations, who the hell do you think you are to know the one true way it can be taken, and should be taken by everyone?

I swear to God, it never ceases to amaze me that the die hard skeptics and "rationalists" tend to be just as closed minded and self-assured about Biblical interpretation as the fucking fundamentalists.

ComradeMan

30th April 2011, 10:58

Matthew 7:14: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

It's a bit of a philosophical point isn't it? How many rich people are happy? How many people live fulfilled lives?

Mark: 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Just like Hindu schools and Buddhists etc believe that no one will reach Nirvana unless they liberate themselves. Note that it says "believe AND baptised". The point that was being made was that (in the context) keep living the way you are living and you won't reach "enlightenment".

Luke:3:12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
3:13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

So he was telling the soldiers to renounce violence? And of course if everyone renounced violence there would be no possibility for state coercion. The publicans were the tax men- so he was saying to them to take only what was right- thus implying that at the time the tax officials were corrupt and exploiting.

Romans:1:20 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Corinthians:6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Well the interpretation of this is moot- but I have read much that suggests they were talking about either temple prostitution and/or pederasty.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Okay- avoid them, just like a Jewish person would avoid a pork convention or a Hindu would not go to an Argentinian steak barbecue. There is no mention of burning at the stake, jihads or going out killing the infidels.

El Chuncho

30th April 2011, 11:16

The Census of Quirinius of Judaea and Syria occurred about 6/7 CE. Jesus was from Bethlehem, Judaea.

His family was from Galilee, though. Jospeh and Mary just wouldn't need to travel to Bethlehem to sign any census. Roman censuses were not as illogical as presented in the Bible, as they would have been taken in the local populace center, and not in a different country (and despite everything Galilee and Iudea were different countries, more or less), and only the householder would have to sign. So Joseph would only have had to sign at the equivalent of a town hall. And as stated Josephus was not a Roman citizen nor did he live in the Roman Empire, he would not have to cross into the Roman Empire to sign anything, nor pay tax (though Herod Antipas did pay tribute to Rome).

And the vast numbers of people living in the Roman empire travelling to their ancestral homes would cause chaos and more importantly be picked up by more historians.

This is interesting because it was against Israelite/Jewish custom and law to number the people and along with the accompanying taxes could have been one of the reasons for growing anti-Roman feeling at the time.

The worldwide census just didn't happen. Quirinius only held a local census in Syria, which was the wrong date for the Bible story (though you are correct that the local census angered the zealots). And Herod the Great, died in 4 BCE, whereas Quirinius was only made consul of Syria in 6 or 7 CE.

There have been so many calendar reforms, errors etc that dating ancient events is always approximate and hazardous.

You are correct about that, but the nativity story has far too many incorrect dates and anachronisms. And we should always put real history before religious history. If the Bible contradicts other histories, it has to be false on those issues. So it seems likely that if Jesus existed, his birth was very different from that presented in the nativity story.

ComradeMan

30th April 2011, 11:26

His family was from Galilee, though. Jospeh and Mary just wouldn't need to travel to Bethlehem to sign any census.

We don't know that- both Mary and Joseph were of the tribe of Judah according to ancient sources.

The worldwide census just didn't happen. Quirinius only held a local census, which was the wrong date for the Bible story (though you are correct that the local census angered the zealots). Herod the Great, died in 4 BCE, whereas Quirinius was only made consul of Syria in 6 CE..

We don't know the exact dates they range between 6BCE to 7CE.

You are correct about that, but the nativity story has far too many incorrect dates and anachronisms. And we should always put real history before religious history. If the Bible contradicts other histories, it has to be false on those issues. So it seems likely that if Jesus existed, his birth was very different from that presented in the nativity story.

It's not a history text book. Interetingly, no two honest witnesses will ever give exactly the same story- the police get suspicious when the stories match up.

I think most people realise that the Gospels were written quite a while after the event and remember you are dealing with a very different world in terms of communication.

Like Robocommie points out- it's only a problem for literalists.

Revolution starts with U

30th April 2011, 16:46

Simple. Don't read it like a god-damn fundamentalist. That's also why you don't "throw out" the Hebrew scripture either. You just don't read it like a Young Earth Creationist. I said it already, a lot of Christians aren't literalists, and actually a lot of Christians believe literalism is absurd. I'm not Christian anymore, but when I was, I did. It is in fact the official position of the Catholic Church that the Bible is a book not to be read out of the context in which it was written: some decades after the time that Jesus was believed to have died, by apostles who were very much men of their time, with prejudices and biases of their own.
True. After the reformation the church did take an official stance in support of science and against literalism. Before that they just left it up to each priest/cardinal/pope to decide their own stance.

I mean honestly, what are you thinking, talking about homophobia and racism in books that were written almost 2000 years ago, before any of these modern conceptions of sexual or ethnic identity existed? How absurd is it to be talking about the "workers struggle" before even the development of the Marxist definition of fucking feudalism, let alone capitalism? Why are you so uncharitable as to not give leftist Christians the benefit of the doubt that they may be smart enough to understand a thing called context?
Incorrect. Homosexuality was not universally damned in those times. And there were plenty of people who stood up for workers and poor people, and were against aristocracy and slavery.

Don't be so desperate to invalidate the viewpoints of people whose beliefs you don't like that you overlook common sense, let alone common courtesy. There are people who work their whole lives studying ancient languages and cultures to be able to parse the meanings of these texts, and whole denominations have been founded on alternate interpretations, who the hell do you think you are to know the one true way it can be taken, and should be taken by everyone?
:rolleyes: I don't think asking how you reconcile your religion with your politics is declaring you know the one true way.
As you have said, you have to cherry pick the Bible to not be a straight dick. So any morality you have gained from it is pure coincedence. It's not a bad question to ask.

I swear to God, it never ceases to amaze me that the die hard skeptics and "rationalists" tend to be just as closed minded and self-assured about Biblical interpretation as the fucking fundamentalists.
Well, cuz it doesn't make sense. If you have to cherry pick the Bible... don't you think you would have come to those conclusions anyway?!

Dumb

30th April 2011, 17:00

I swear to God, it never ceases to amaze me that the die hard skeptics and "rationalists" tend to be just as closed minded and self-assured about Biblical interpretation as the fucking fundamentalists.

This so-called "closed minded" and "self assured" "die hard skeptic" is a figment of your own creation, which you have projected onto me. You label me "desperate to invalidate the viewpoints of people whose beliefs [I] don't like" and say that I "overlook common sense, let alone common courtesy"; if, instead, you had made the slightest effort to engage in what I put forward, you would find me rather nuanced and open-minded - perhaps one of the most self-doubting people you will find on this board.

Unless and until you choose to stop patronizing me, it is best for me to ignore you - not that you care, but just so you will understand why I don't respond to your subsequent posts.

Dumb

30th April 2011, 17:23

First off, ComradeMan, thank you for making this an actual discussion. I'll take this point-by-point.

Matthew 7:14: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

It's a bit of a philosophical point isn't it? How many rich people are happy? How many people live fulfilled lives?

The context of that verse indicates that Jesus is discussing salvation and entrance into heaven. Also, throughout the Gospels, Jesus is frequently quoted using "life" or "leading to life" as a reference to salvation - e.g. Matthew 18:8, "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire."

Mark: 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Just like Hindu schools and Buddhists etc believe that no one will reach Nirvana unless they liberate themselves. Note that it says "believe AND baptised". The point that was being made was that (in the context) keep living the way you are living and you won't reach "enlightenment".

There's a big gulf, however, between falling short of "enlightenment" and falling into damnation.

Consider also the religious context in which Jesus makes this pronouncement. He comes from a religion that never required universal observance; the Torah only applied to Jews, and at no point within Judaism (even in biblical times) was there ever any concept that non-Jews had to convert to be with God. This pronouncement from Jesus completely reverses that policy.

Luke:3:12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
3:13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

So he was telling the soldiers to renounce violence? And of course if everyone renounced violence there would be no possibility for state coercion. The publicans were the tax men- so he was saying to them to take only what was right- thus implying that at the time the tax officials were corrupt and exploiting.

You're right on this point. I'd forgotten that "publican" was a term for the tax collectors. Facepalm moment!

Romans:1:20 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Corinthians:6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Well the interpretation of this is moot- but I have read much that suggests they were talking about either temple prostitution and/or pederasty.

I've read much of that evidence as well. I forget which term it is that Paul uses in the 1 Corinthians passage, but I do know that he uses "arsenokoitai" in some of his letters - literally "male-bedders." That's obviously an ambiguous phrase, and the context of some passages does suggest that he's talking about men who "bed" with prostitutes (whether the prostitutes are male or female). In fact, "arsenokoitai" might even be the term in 1 Corinthians, so I'll give you that.

What would you say about the passage from Romans, though? Is there anything within the text or the context of the text to suggest that Paul was condemning anything other than sex between members of the same sex? (Note also that the Romans passage is the only mention in the Bible of women having intercourse together). Back in my Methodist days, my then-fellow Christian lefties and I claimed that Paul "didn't intend to include loving, monogamous same-sex relationships" (note inclusion of today's social constructions).

If we look at what Paul says in Romans, though, doesn't that seem like a blanket condemnation of all intercourse between men and all intercourse between women?

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Okay- avoid them, just like a Jewish person would avoid a pork convention or a Hindu would not go to an Argentinian steak barbecue. There is no mention of burning at the stake, jihads or going out killing the infidels.

There's a difference, though, between avoiding pork conventions and avoiding the people who attend them. Paul isn't just advocating that Christians avoid instances in which contrary doctrines are being taught; he commands Christians to avoid the people who teach those doctrines.

You're right about no mention of burning at the stake, jihads, etcetera & so forth; my intent wasn't to insinuate such, but rather to raise the point that Paul's requirements of a Christian would make it impossible to develop solidarity with non-Christians in the leftist movement.

Fawkes

30th April 2011, 17:42

Robocommie

30th April 2011, 17:55

This so-called "closed minded" and "self assured" "die hard skeptic" is a figment of your own creation, which you have projected onto me. You label me "desperate to invalidate the viewpoints of people whose beliefs [I] don't like" and say that I "overlook common sense, let alone common courtesy"; if, instead, you had made the slightest effort to engage in what I put forward, you would find me rather nuanced and open-minded - perhaps one of the most self-doubting people you will find on this board.

Unless and until you choose to stop patronizing me, it is best for me to ignore you - not that you care, but just so you will understand why I don't respond to your subsequent posts.

You're trying to put forward a bullshit argument that Christians can't be leftists. Not that you care - but just because you think of yourself as nuanced and open-minded doesn't mean you aren't capable of acting like an ass. I engaged in what you put forward, and I gave it just as much respect as it deserved. You're quoting scripture out of context to support your own argument, using shallow, surface readings for the purpose of excluding a massive cultural demographic from a whole segment of the political spectrum. There's nothing nuanced and open-minded about that, and you sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring me on that doesn't change that fact.

Now, while you're busy being so offended, I hope you'll take the time to consider that this kind of political exclusion and uncharitable reading into the holy books of other culture groups - without any kind of context at all - is generally a pretty patronizing thing to do. Your own insistence that you are in fact "nuanced and open-minded" does nothing to change that.

Dumb

30th April 2011, 18:14

You're trying to put forward a bullshit argument that Christians can't be leftists.

If you - or anybody else - can show me where I said that in this or any other post on this or any other site, then I will gladly send that person $250 US (or the equivalent if that person happens to live outside the US).

Instead, here is what I actually said:

There's actually a great deal of material within the New Testament that makes it difficult to reconcile Christianity with leftism; it's not just a matter of verses in Leviticus, etc.

So if we want to throw out the Hebrew Scripture on the grounds that Jesus supposedly "fulfilled the law," how do Christian leftists reconcile their leftism with these portions of the Bible?

If one takes the most direction interpretation of what I actually said, you'd come up with something like this: "Christianity and leftism are difficult to reconcile; how do Christian leftists do that?"

The problem is simple. You are not responding to me, but rather to past encounters that you've had. You then pigeon-hole me with other leftists who've made much more radical arguments than the one I'm making. If you'd bother to read what I said, we'd have a very different (i.e. productive) discussion.

Dumb

30th April 2011, 18:26

All of our lives are filled with contradictory beliefs/actions and inconsistencies, it's effectively a form of cognitive dissonance. In the case of Christian leftists, the most logical and (seemingly) common solution to this problem is simply not reading the Bible as something to be taken literally and with an emphasis placed on the historical context of it.

Historical context only takes one so far, though. For example, reading the Book of Revelation in historical context renders it rather inoffensive in my eyes ("Hey, Christians, I know we're being persecuted by Rome right now, but there will come a time when we will overcome our oppressors, and we'll be one with God"). There comes a point, though, when "historical context" essentially becomes a pretext for ignoring pieces of the religion altogether.

I also get the feeling that many Christian leftists who argue for historical context are actually saying something more along the lines of, "That was Christianity then, and this is Christianity now" - that is, that the faith they have today is qualitatively different from the one they have now. I myself fought that battle for several years before concluding that my personal brand of Christianity was too watered-down to consider Christian any longer.

For Christian leftists who came to a different conclusion, though, I'm genuinely curious to find out what parts of Christianity you consider to be reconcilable with being a leftist. What's the nature of the faith you practice today? If it's not necessary for all of humanity to follow Jesus, then why do you individually choose to do so - and what do you get out of that?

Robocommie

30th April 2011, 19:01

Incorrect. Homosexuality was not universally damned in those times.

I'm not saying it was universally damned. I'm very well aware of the extremely varied cultural attitudes to homosexuality. I'm not talking about the levels of permissiveness. What I'm saying is that they didn't have our modern conceptions about it. Suggesting otherwise would be presentism.

And there were plenty of people who stood up for workers and poor people, and were against aristocracy and slavery.

Which hardly constitutes a labor struggle by our modern conception of it. Talking about it like that is anachronistic in the extreme, and you can hardly expect these attitudes to be universal.

:rolleyes: I don't think asking how you reconcile your religion with your politics is declaring you know the one true way.

I think it's a pretty condescending question in the first place. It makes some pretty bold assumptions about how other people view their religious beliefs, which are incredibly personal and individual things. Frankly, the fact that you, from the outset, think you know so much about what someone else's religion means (so that you can ask why it doesn't clash with their politics) you have a pretty definite idea of the one true way of how that religion is.

As you have said, you have to cherry pick the Bible to not be a straight dick. So any morality you have gained from it is pure coincedence. It's not a bad question to ask.

Well, cuz it doesn't make sense. If you have to cherry pick the Bible... don't you think you would have come to those conclusions anyway?!

It's not "cherry picking" anymore than reading any book for the wisdom it contains, while discarding the rest is "cherry picking." It's not "cherry picking" to make an informed, interpretative reading of something.

See, this is why you guys are full of it. You're so quick to scoff at the idea that you're being closed-minded and that you're acting as though you know the one true way, and then in the very next breath you're condescendingly suggesting that the spirituality of the person you're talking to is rather meaningless and their beliefs are purely coincidental. You have your own preconceived notion about what religion is and what religion means to everyone, that it doesn't even strike you as incredibly patronizing to tell other people what their beliefs mean to them. But engaging with people that way is incredibly dishonest, arrogant and patronizing.

You couldn't possibly know what it is that the Bible means to me. You couldn't possibly; what I gain from it occurs entirely in my head and in my heart. Who the fuck do you think you are, to tell myself and others of what usefulness their beliefs are to them, and what kind of effect they have on them. Who the hell are YOU to tell me what I believe? If you came to me honestly, wanting to know, I'd happily talk to you about it, and then maybe you'd understand how I see it. Maybe then we could have mutual respect. As it is, you will never understand, because you already think you know. You've decided for yourself already what's going on in my head. You must have, because who else asks such a presumptuous question?

Robocommie

30th April 2011, 19:06

If you - or anybody else - can show me where I said that in this or any other post on this or any other site, then I will gladly send that person $250 US (or the equivalent if that person happens to live outside the US).

Instead, here is what I actually said:

If one takes the most direction interpretation of what I actually said, you'd come up with something like this: "Christianity and leftism are difficult to reconcile; how do Christian leftists do that?"

The problem is simple. You are not responding to me, but rather to past encounters that you've had. You then pigeon-hole me with other leftists who've made much more radical arguments than the one I'm making. If you'd bother to read what I said, we'd have a very different (i.e. productive) discussion.

Doesn't the question imply the answer, particularly when you're apparently so keen on rejecting the initial answers? "How can you reconcile it when there's X and Y and Z and it's all so fucked up?" It sounds like you're asking leading questions, rather than genuinely trying to understand. This is particularly the case when you start drudging up quotes from scripture to use like evidence in a prosecutorial case.

If I was mistaken, then I owe you an apology. At the same time though, if you really are as reasonable and sincere as you say, then perhaps you can see how your questions could come across as leading?

Dumb

30th April 2011, 19:16

Doesn't the question imply the answer, particularly when you're apparently so keen on rejecting the initial answers? "How can you reconcile it when there's X and Y and Z and it's all so fucked up?" It sounds like you're asking leading questions, rather than genuinely trying to understand. This is particularly the case when you start drudging up quotes from scripture to use like evidence in a prosecutorial case.

It's interesting that you assume I'm asking questions with some intent other than to have them answered - that you assume I'm being insincere.

Your responses in this thread have been very defensive. You seem to assume that other people have the intent to attack you, and this assumption on your part has colored your reading of everything I've said throughout this thread. The questions I'm asking are, in my opinion, fair questions to ask; maybe they're not pleasant, but my entire purpose was to get a Christian leftist response to those questions. Your response, so far, has been to dismiss anything I've asked, right down to arguing, "Doesn't the question imply the answer..."

From what I can see, you're so determined to believe I'm coming from a hateful, condescending perspective that you're not willing to entertain any other possibilities as to what my perspective might actually be. I'm not even saying that you have to assume I mean well - you merely have to stop presuming any ill-will on my part. If you honestly believe half the things you've said about my posts in this thread, then you'd best report me for hateful and prejudiced treatment of Christians. I say this sincerely.

For what it's worth, Fawkes and ComradeMan have at least taken my questions seriously.

Dumb

30th April 2011, 19:29

Which hardly constitutes a labor struggle by our modern conception of it. Talking about it like that is anachronistic in the extreme, and you can hardly expect these attitudes to be universal.

I have to point out to everybody engaging on this particular point that I essentially butchered the passage involved; publican = tax collector. As far as tax collectors are involved, context goes a long way in re-shaping reasonable interpretations of the text.

It's not "cherry picking" anymore than reading any book for the wisdom it contains, while discarding the rest is "cherry picking." It's not "cherry picking" to make an informed, interpretative reading of something.

I've read, and continue to read, the Bible for the wisdom it contains, while discarding the rest. Given my self-identification as irreligious, and given your identification as a Christian lefist (if I'm assuming incorrectly, please correct me), we clearly have different ideas of what in the Bible is wise and what in the Bible deserves to be discarded.

With that in mind, would you mind discussing your interpretation of Christianity as a leftist? If you believe that it's not necessary for all humans to be Christian, then why do you choose to be Christian, and what do you derive from doing so? What do you believe are the consequences for someone like me who decides not to be Christian?

See, this is why you guys are full of it.

Just remember that your debate partners in this thread are not a monolith.

Robocommie

30th April 2011, 19:43

It's interesting that you assume I'm asking questions with some intent other than to have them answered - that you assume I'm being insincere.

Consequence of internet debate, I'm afraid. Most people only read another persons post to look for weaknesses in their arguments, and only ask questions to lead them to their own conclusion. It's a bad habit and it rubs off very quickly. :(

Your responses in this thread have been very defensive. You seem to assume that other people have the intent to attack you, and this assumption on your part has colored your reading of everything I've said throughout this thread. The questions I'm asking are, in my opinion, fair questions to ask; maybe they're not pleasant, but my entire purpose was to get a Christian leftist response to those questions. Your response, so far, has been to dismiss anything I've asked, right down to arguing, "Doesn't the question imply the answer..."

From what I can see, you're so determined to believe I'm coming from a hateful, condescending perspective that you're not willing to entertain any other possibilities as to what my perspective might actually be. I'm not even saying that you have to assume I mean well - you merely have to stop presuming any ill-will on my part.

In this case, I do owe you an apology. And I'm sorry. I hope you'll understand that it is something of a learned response. The level of bullshit that gets slung around here by anti-theists, who happen to one of the largest camps on the forum, is generally pretty heavy and it gets pretty hostile. In fact, years ago, in one of my earliest posts in this forum, I was called a "Godsucker" for being religious. It leaves an impression. That's karma though: In reacting to the unkindness of others I have been unkind to you. I am sorry for that.

In my defense though, and with all due respect, I did feel your initial questions were somewhat unfair.

If you honestly believe half the things you've said about my posts in this thread, then you'd best report me for hateful and prejudiced treatment of Christians. I say this sincerely.

I rarely report people, because I think it's better to confront things than whack it with a mod stick.

El Chuncho

30th April 2011, 19:52

We don't know that- both Mary and Joseph were of the tribe of Judah according to ancient sources.

We do know that. The Bible states that they were from Galilee but travel to Bethlehem to sign the census of the whole Roman world.

We don't know the exact dates they range between 6BCE to 7CE.

Actually, we know that Quirinius was governor in 6 CE (after Herod Archelaus's banishment from Iudaea) or 7 CE, he couldn't have been governor before this point. We also know that Herod The Great died in 4 BCE, the dates are not that uncertain, actually. That means that either Jesus was born at the reign of Herod, and the claim in the Bible that Quirinius was governor is wrong, or he was born in the governorship of Quirinius, and that the claim that Herod ruled is wrong.

It's not a history text book. Interetingly, no two honest witnesses will ever give exactly the same story- the police get suspicious when the stories match up.

My point exactly, it cannot be taken as history because there are too many errors in it, especially historical areas in the Nativity.

I think most people realise that the Gospels were written quite a while after the event and remember you are dealing with a very different world in terms of communication.

The events may have happened or they may not have, it depends on how you look at it. The events could have been inflated in importance, or they could just has been made up. But that is where belief comes in I think.

Like Robocommie points out- it's only a problem for literalists.

Indeed.

Robocommie

30th April 2011, 20:13

I have to point out to everybody engaging on this particular point that I essentially butchered the passage involved; publican = tax collector. As far as tax collectors are involved, context goes a long way in re-shaping reasonable interpretations of the text.

Fair enough then. As far as the rest goes, I'd also like to contribute by making a note that a LOT of Christians think Paul is kind of a dick. Though his legacy stands, he is often seen by Christians as being to Christ what Engels was to Marx. I'm not sure if that analogy makes sense...

I've read, and continue to read, the Bible for the wisdom it contains, while discarding the rest. Given my self-identification as irreligious, and given your identification as a Christian lefist (if I'm assuming incorrectly, please correct me), we clearly have different ideas of what in the Bible is wise and what in the Bible deserves to be discarded.

With that in mind, would you mind discussing your interpretation of Christianity as a leftist? If you believe that it's not necessary for all humans to be Christian, then why do you choose to be Christian, and what do you derive from doing so? What do you believe are the consequences for someone like me who decides not to be Christian?I'm not exactly a Christian. Actually I would say that definitively, I am not Christian. I was raised Catholic, then went through sort-of an uncertain wandering period, and then later settled into Zen Buddhism. My views on things are a bit heterodox, though.

When I was a Christian though, I can tell you what I believed and what I was taught that leads me to see the two as basically reconcilable. Generally, I think I was most heavily influenced by something my dad, who is a devout Catholic, had told me many times. Basically, he said that if you look at all the major world religions, they more or less teach the same kind of things. Don't kill people, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, rather, be kind, and loving and help people. He more or less felt, as I did, that God's real concern is that you try to genuinely be a good person, and live to the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself. Matthew 22:35-40.

I never believed God would send good people to Hell because they were in the wrong religion. Nevertheless I chose to be Christian for the same reason my dad chose to be Christian: because he believed in God and he had been raised Catholic, it was the path that felt right for him. To be Christian was a commitment to try and be Christ-like, and live by Christ's example. And from that comes an incredible sense of peace, because Christ preached love. And when you give love and kindness to your fellow humankind for its own sake, you get love and kindness back. But even if you don't get anything back, you still have far more peace of mind than if you stray from the path of peace and forgiveness to the path of revenge and hate and anger. It's an incredibly powerful feeling to look at another person and know in your heart, that I want you to be happy, and not because it meets my own ends, but because you are my brother, or sister, and I love you.

In this context, I don't even think it matters if Jesus was real or if God is real. Love is real, and the love of humanity is real, and in that place, God becomes more real than anything else.

ComradeMan

30th April 2011, 21:34

...

It's not a problem unless you are a literalist... that's why I take issue with fundamentalists---

El Chuncho

30th April 2011, 21:36

It's not a problem unless you are a literalist... that's why I take issue with fundamentalists---

Agreed...well, I take issues with them for many, many issues. I have been to their Jerusalem in suburban Georgia, USA, in fact.

Dumb

30th April 2011, 21:46

It's not a problem unless you are a literalist... that's why I take issue with fundamentalists---

For me, the real question isn't "Do you or don't you take such-and-such verse literally." Rather, the question is, "If not a 'traditional' interpretation of Christianity, then what?"

An illustrative anecdote: I participated in a progressive Episcopal group throughout all my university years, and maintain very close personal ties with the organisation. The beauty of the group was its diversity - there were times when we'd have a dozen active members, and the only self-described Christian was the pastor herself.

What I noticed, though, was that this campus ministry had developed from being specifically Christian to serving as a discussion group for faith and ethics. The Christian character was very watered-down, and one could go to about half the events without hearing any mention of Jesus, salvation, etcetera.

To me, this was a positive, and probably the best approach given the available audience. On the other hand, I can see how it would bother many self-described Christians. If we remove any value judgments from the question, it's very fair to ask whether or not the campus ministry was Christian per se, or if it was merely run by Christians.

Revolution starts with U

1st May 2011, 00:41

I'm not saying it was universally damned. I'm very well aware of the extremely varied cultural attitudes to homosexuality. I'm not talking about the levels of permissiveness. What I'm saying is that they didn't have our modern conceptions about it. Suggesting otherwise would be presentism.
Then in historical context, the Bible, and ancient biblical followers is/are terribly reactionary.

I think it's a pretty condescending question in the first place. It makes some pretty bold assumptions about how other people view their religious beliefs, which are incredibly personal and individual things. Frankly, the fact that you, from the outset, think you know so much about what someone else's religion means (so that you can ask why it doesn't clash with their politics) you have a pretty definite idea of the one true way of how that religion is.
Incorrect. What is happening is a comparitive analysis of the values of the bible and the values of leftism. People don't even have to come into the equation, other than to ask how said person reconciles the Bible with their leftism.

It's not "cherry picking" anymore than reading any book for the wisdom it contains, while discarding the rest is "cherry picking." It's not "cherry picking" to make an informed, interpretative reading of something
I would agree with that' as long as you don't consider it a holy book. But then that again brings up the point... isn't your christianity largely irrelevant to your morality, and wouldn't you have come to those conclusions anyway.

See, this is why you guys are full of it
Who are these "you guys". In other words... "what do you mean 'you people?"

You're so quick to scoff at the idea that you're being closed-minded and that you're acting as though you know the one true way,
I do scoff at religion. But I in no way am claiming knowledge of the one true way. I'm claiming knowledge of the Bible, and leftism. I don't even think there IS a one true way.

and then in the very next breath you're condescendingly suggesting that the spirituality of the person you're talking to is rather meaningless and their beliefs are purely coincidental.
Well....
If the Bible is not to be taken literally, and most other religions have the same ethics.... how is not largely irrelevant? Don't you think people would come to those conclusions anyway?

You have your own preconceived notion about what religion is and what religion means to everyone, that it doesn't even strike you as incredibly patronizing to tell other people what their beliefs mean to them
Nowhere did I tell people what their beliefs mean to them. I told them what their beliefs mean to the rest of us.

But engaging with people that way is incredibly dishonest, arrogant and patronizing
It's not dishonest or patronizing.

You couldn't possibly know what it is that the Bible means to me. You couldn't possibly; what I gain from it occurs entirely in my head and in my heart
Yes, exactly. I can't. Why? Because the bible is largely irrelevant to your beliefs, other than to serve as a post-hoc rationalization.

Who the fuck do you think you are, to tell myself and others of what usefulness their beliefs are to them, and what kind of effect they have on them. Who the hell are YOU to tell me what I believe?
I never told you what you believe. I said you would have come to those conclusions whether you were a christian, jewish, buddhist, atheist, or scientologist.

If you came to me honestly, wanting to know, I'd happily talk to you about it, and then maybe you'd understand how I see it. Maybe then we could have mutual respect. As it is, you will never understand, because you already think you know. You've decided for yourself already what's going on in my head. You must have, because who else asks such a presumptuous question?

I did no such thing, and yet I asked. So.....?
I know what leftism is, and I know what the Bible says. I never claimed to know anything about you.

Robocommie

1st May 2011, 03:45

Then in historical context, the Bible, and ancient biblical followers is/are terribly reactionary.

I honestly don't even know how to answer that. I mean for starters, you're making a very broad and simplistic generalization about a book which is actually many books, written over thousands of years, by different authors or even groups of authors, for different purposes, some archival, some biographical, some philosophical, some liturgical.

Incorrect. What is happening is a comparitive analysis of the values of the bible and the values of leftism. People don't even have to come into the equation, other than to ask how said person reconciles the Bible with their leftism.You know, I want to point out it's really annoying the way you say "Incorrect" as if you're the proctor of some kind of test.

Secondly, what exactly are the values of the Bible? You should summarize them for me. Very few people seem to agree on that, given all the debate on religious interpretation. Even fewer people seem to agree on the values of leftism. In all my time here on Revleft, I have seen endless heated arguments over just what "the left" is really about. Doesn't seem to be too much of a consensus.

And how the hell are you going to separate people from the equation? This is inherently about people. That's all religion is, it's human. It's about the inner life of people, and about the outer life of people, how they relate to one another and their world. You can't separate it.

I would agree with that' as long as you don't consider it a holy book. But then that again brings up the point... isn't your christianity largely irrelevant to your morality, and wouldn't you have come to those conclusions anyway.I'm not a Christian. The more I have to say that, the more I have to wonder how much you're paying attention to what I'm saying.

And to answer your question, no, of course not. If it were true, then books in general would be worthless, because we'd have come up with the ideas they contain anyway.

I realize that atheists talk about how they can be good people without religion, and a lot of you have extended that to mean that nobody needs religion to be a good person at all. That's rather silly given that it overlooks the fact that your idea of what it is to be a good person didn't come to you in a vacuum. You were raised in a society with expectations and values, based on everything that came before. You might find this uncomfortable, but the fact is that the world's religions have had an irrevocable effect on humanity, and on you personally. This idea of peace and forgiveness being good for its own sake comes from somewhere. I can't speak about you, but my own ancestors two thousand years ago thought that raiding and killing people from the next village over was perfectly acceptable and didn't actually require justification. They literally used to put the severed heads of their enemies on the archways of their homes. And it goes further and more abstract. The idea that any injustice committed is an abstract wrong, a violation of some kind of natural law, that comes from contemporary religion too. In the old days of my ancestors, if I killed someone from your clan, I could make restitutions simply by paying you the blood price, and that would be justice served. That shit changed when Christianity came to my ancestors. Suddenly the idea of murder being an inherently foul act came into vogue. It radically shifted their entire society. Raiding lost it's appeal, and it became replaced with the Augustinian concept of "just war" which is an idea that has affected western civilization for untold generations.

You say the Bible, and I assume you'd say the same about other religious books, serves only as a confirmation of what I already think. That might hold water, if what I think hadn't already been so influenced by these books.

Your argument is sophistry. Or, at the very least, you're using a different set of standards for what constitutes meaningfulness, and then expecting me to adopt your own.

I do scoff at religion. But I in no way am claiming knowledge of the one true way. I'm claiming knowledge of the Bible, and leftism. I don't even think there IS a one true way.You're claiming knowledge of the only possible way to interpret the Bible, the one true way to look at it. For something that is incredibly subjective and personal, like religion, that's really kind of dumb. I mean hey, forgive me for saying so, but I kinda doubt you've got a doctorate in Religious Studies or something. Maybe you were devoutly religious in your youth, maybe you were academically interested in the subject at one time, but I seriously doubt you know so much you could speak so authoritatively on the subject. Frankly, you're making an authoritative enough statement that it's going to require that kind of credibility. At least.

Well....
If the Bible is not to be taken literally, and most other religions have the same ethics.... how is not largely irrelevant? Don't you think people would come to those conclusions anyway?If you read a Shakespearean love sonnet, it might remind you how much you miss your girlfriend and cause you to spend more time with her. But you might have had that thought anyway. Does that mean we shouldn't bother reading Shakespeare?

I know, I know. There's a difference between Shakespeare and religious texts, you say. Why? I don't have the assumptions that you do about where God lives. You know, to quote Taoism, the greatest mountain and the tiniest pebble all contain the exact same amount of the Tao.

Nowhere did I tell people what their beliefs mean to them. I told them what their beliefs mean to the rest of us.That's complete sophistry. You said rather pointedly that my religious beliefs were irrelevant to my morality, and that I would have reached my moral conclusions on my own. It's something you continue to do. How can you make that statement without making an enormous presumption on exactly what meaning my beliefs have, either to me or to anybody?

It's not dishonest or patronizing.
Brilliant argument. "No it's not." I suppose you concede that it's arrogant, then?

Yes, exactly. I can't. Why? Because the bible is largely irrelevant to your beliefs, other than to serve as a post-hoc rationalization.

I never told you what you believe. I said you would have come to those conclusions whether you were a christian, jewish, buddhist, atheist, or scientologist.You're going to have to make a statement of fact about what my beliefs are if you're ever going to actually argue that I would have come to the conclusions anyway, chief. You can't assert I would have reached a given conclusion if you don't know what it is.

I know what leftism is, and I know what the Bible says. I never claimed to know anything about you.Again, you pretty confidently stated that the Bible didn't affect me in any way. Unless you think that nothing we experience can actually affect us, then you must have a pretty good idea of what effect it's had on me. And how could you even make this statement at all without making really bold assumptions about my personal history?

Robocommie

1st May 2011, 03:56

God I am sick of this bullshit. I am so sick of feeling unwelcome and insulted on this board just because of my spiritual beliefs and practices. I am so sick and tired of having to come up with an intellectual justification for making less negative assumptions about me and other religious posters.

Revolution starts with U

1st May 2011, 07:10

I honestly don't even know how to answer that. I mean for starters, you're making a very broad and simplistic generalization about a book which is actually many books, written over thousands of years, by different authors or even groups of authors, for different purposes, some archival, some biographical, some philosophical, some liturgical.
I'm saying:
There's a book. This book is at times terribly anti worker, bigoted, pro slavery and genocide, anti woman, etc. Yet at the same time there were peoples and groups standing up against this, that were pro worker, woman, etc. To say we have to keep the Bible in historical context only makes it that much worse.
Most of its' redeeming qualities come from jewish struggle against oppression. But has just as much oppression on its own.
The question, what's the point? Most of the world's religions and ethical systems come to largely the same conclusions (both and good and bad). People who follow it are not per se better than anyone else because of it. Why hold on to it?

You know, I want to point out it's really annoying the way you say "Incorrect" as if you're the proctor of some kind of test.
It was merely a point of disagreement.

Secondly, what exactly are the values of the Bible? You should summarize them for me. Very few people seem to agree on that, given all the debate on religious interpretation. Even fewer people seem to agree on the values of leftism. In all my time here on Revleft, I have seen endless heated arguments over just what "the left" is really about. Doesn't seem to be too much of a consensus.
I think we can all agree "kill all the cananites, women are subservient to men because they ate an apple first and thats why they have periods and painful childbirth, gays are damned, know your place and server your master becuz its god's punishment" and much more are not leftist.
The Bible has some redeeming qualities. Its good for just a book. But why build a (personal or any) religion on it? Its just a book, and Jesus was a just a man.

And how the hell are you going to separate people from the equation? This is inherently about people. That's all religion is, it's human. It's about the inner life of people, and about the outer life of people, how they relate to one another and their world. You can't separate it.
Well, in the sense that people developed christianity, wrote the bible, and developed leftism as a viable political source yes. Its about people. But taking the people out of the equation is easy. You look at the core of what it is.
It's not about your religion. That's your thing. It's about your religion and why you rely upon the bible for it, regardless of its very questionable stances.

I'm not a Christian. The more I have to say that, the more I have to wonder how much you're paying attention to what I'm saying.
I use the figurative "you (all)" a lot. You can ask my IRL friends. If I'm describing a situation I tend to say "you start to do..." no matter who I'm talking about, even myself. Apologies. Just take you to mean christian leftists. In other words, how would you, were you a christian leftist, reconcile your leftism with the Bible.

And to answer your question, no, of course not. If it were true, then books in general would be worthless, because we'd have come up with the ideas they contain anyway.
:thumbup1: Right. But you, personally, still have to choose to act in accordance. It's just a book. Why be a "christian" leftist. Was jesus really the son of God?

I realize that atheists talk about how they can be good people without religion, and a lot of you have extended that to mean that nobody needs religion to be a good person at all. That's rather silly given that it overlooks the fact that your idea of what it is to be a good person didn't come to you in a vacuum. You were raised in a society with expectations and values, based on everything that came before. You might find this uncomfortable, but the fact is that the world's religions have had an irrevocable effect on humanity, and on you personally. This idea of peace and forgiveness being good for its own sake comes from somewhere. I can't speak about you, but my own ancestors two thousand years ago thought that raiding and killing people from the next village over was perfectly acceptable and didn't actually require justification. They literally used to put the severed heads of their enemies on the archways of their homes. And it goes further and more abstract. The idea that any injustice committed is an abstract wrong, a violation of some kind of natural law, that comes from contemporary religion too. In the old days of my ancestors, if I killed someone from your clan, I could make restitutions simply by paying you the blood price, and that would be justice served. That shit changed when Christianity came to my ancestors. Suddenly the idea of murder being an inherently foul act came into vogue. It radically shifted their entire society. Raiding lost it's appeal, and it became replaced with the Augustinian concept of "just war" which is an idea that has affected western civilization for untold generations.
I mean, I can't argue with that. But yet the Bible, in places, is perfectly fine with such actions. So really what good is it, or Jesus, other than anything else? Why be a "christian" leftist, rather than just a leftist who respects the bible and jesus?

Your argument is sophistry. Or, at the very least, you're using a different set of standards for what constitutes meaningfulness, and then expecting me to adopt your own.
I am saying that good people tend to come to the same conclusions anyway. Why identify as a christian? Why not just be a person, who learned some things. Is Jesus the son of God? Is the Bible some kind of insight into God? Will there be a heaven and/or Hell when we die?
How do you reconcile such things with you leftism?

You're claiming knowledge of the only possible way to interpret the Bible,
No

the one true way to look at it.
Incorrect

For something that is incredibly subjective and personal, like religion,
:lol: See above

that's really kind of dumb. I mean hey, forgive me for saying so, but I kinda doubt you've got a doctorate in Religious Studies or something. Maybe you were devoutly religious in your youth, maybe you were academically interested in the subject at one time, but I seriously doubt you know so much you could speak so authoritatively on the subject. Frankly, you're making an authoritative enough statement that it's going to require that kind of credibility. At least.
Appeal to authority. How can you be an expert on what you readilly admit is a personal phenomenon? Seriously?
And you call me a sophist

If you read a Shakespearean love sonnet, it might remind you how much you miss your girlfriend and cause you to spend more time with her. But you might have had that thought anyway. Does that mean we shouldn't bother reading Shakespeare?
:lol:
Would you call yourself a Shakesperian because of it? O hosana on high, we have found the way of William!

I know, I know. There's a difference between Shakespeare and religious texts, you say
No, try again.

Why? I don't have the assumptions that you do about where God lives. You know, to quote Taoism, the greatest mountain and the tiniest pebble all contain the exact same amount of the Tao.
I actually agree with that. You're mistaken about me.

That's complete sophistry. You said rather pointedly that my religious beliefs were irrelevant to my morality, and that I would have reached my moral conclusions on my own. It's something you continue to do. How can you make that statement without making an enormous presumption on exactly what meaning my beliefs have, either to me or to anybody?
See above.

Brilliant argument. "No it's not." I suppose you concede that it's arrogant, then?
:thumbup1:

Again, you pretty confidently stated that the Bible didn't affect me in any way
That's not at all what I meant by irrelevant. I'm saying the Bible is not holy. It's just a book. Jesus was just a man. Why call yourself a "christian" regardless of its merits? How do you reconcile your "christianity" with your "leftism?"

Lenina Rosenweg

1st May 2011, 08:01

I have thought about this quite a bit, and am aware of the very few historical references to Jesus, but just looking at it from a macro-historical view ... to me it just seems there must have been some kind of actual person, a lightning rod if you will - if there wasn't that means that Paul and all the apostles were also fabrications - or hoaxsters that created the story (without a central lightning-rod Messiah figure?) and then worked to spread the Gospel and had such success that by 325 AD Rome thought it a wise choice to co-opt the religion... Just seems Christianity could not be, or would not be the way it is today without there having been that teacher/prophet/messiah figure.

Well I think its possible to say that the success of Christianity does not necessarily mean that the historical Jesus existed. As Hugh Shonfeld said in "The Passover Plot" (his theory is that the crucification was faked, the guy's bot a crackpot and backs up his theory with interesting data, he was one of the scholars who worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls), during the time of Jesus, Judea was a society under extreme oppression and all hell was about to break loose. There were many miracle workers, gurus, spiritual teachers, healers, etc. People were looking for a way out.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_31?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+passover+plot+by+schonfield&sprefix=the+passover+plot+by+schonfield

According to the Pagan Christ
http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christ-Recovering-Lost-Light/dp/0802714498

(which I've only thumbed though, admittedly) while Christianity was ostensibly a growth out of Judaism, it may actually have been based more on Egyptian popular religion among Egyptian immigrants in Rome. A hundred years before Jesus supposedly lived, immigrant communities in Rome were praying to "Mary, mother of God". A widespread belief/longing for a savior figure, a dying and rising god popular though out the Eastern Mediterranean, became combined with a sort of proto-socialism.The pagan tradition, at least at some level, recognized this as a form of "mythic reality" not necessarily literally true, Christianities innovation was placing the savior god in historical time.